CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Debapratim Neogie – Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Opp. Party
CRR 1376 of 2019
Decided on 1.4.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 and 406 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating and criminal breach of trust – Quashing of charge-sheet – FIR has been registered only in respect of Directors – Company has not been made a party/accused in present case even though agreement has been executed between companies – Parties had no disputes during their initial period of contract – There are no materials to support contention of opposite party that petitioner had intention to deceive/cheat right from inception of agreement – Allegations are not so serious that it cannot be taken care of by Arbitrator if parties invoke arbitration clause – Complainant also has avenue of Civil Courts for grievances as made out, there being no prima facie materials to show any criminal intent on part of petitioner or company – Materials on record prima facie do not contain ingredients required for offences alleged – Continuation of proceeding in present case shall be abuse of process of law/court – Criminal proceeding quashed in respect of petitioner. (Paras 18, 32, 35, 36, 37 and 38)
Result: CRR allowed.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.—The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Charge Sheet filed in Durgapur Police Station Case No. 425 of 2018 under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned 3rd Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman.
2. The allegations made by the Opposite Party No. 2 in the Written Complaint are as follows:—
(i) “We, M/s Reliance Corporate IT Park Limited, are having our Regd. Office at Reliance Corporate Park Building No. 4, 5, TTC Industrial Area, Thane-Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400701 and local Office at a Neogie Auto Mansion, South NH2 City Centre Phaze II Durgapur District-Burdwan presently Paschim Burdwan, Circle office now at 17 & 18 th Floor, Tower No.-2, Godrej Waterside, Plot No. 5, Block DP, Sector - V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 091, formerly at Eco Space Business Park, 4th Floor, Block 3B, Rajarhat, New Town, Kolkata-700015.
(ii) We were looking for a suitable accommodation for our office and commercial purpose. In course of our search, we came in contact with above named Mr. Debapratim Neogie, Mr. Debabrata Neogie and Mr. Subrata Neogie, all Directors of Neogie Auto (P) Ltd., and persons-in-charge, control and responsible for day to day affairs of their company Neogie Auto (P) Ltd., who represented that their company is having sufficient space to let out and offered us to take their premises for our office purpose.
(iii) On expressing our requirements that we need round the clock supply of electricity, the above named persons assured to give us round the clock electric supply up to 60KV from their transformer already installed at the premises. We having expressed that we need additional power of 37KV of electricity Power over and above 60KV to run our office, the above named persons agreed and assured to increase the load as required by us.
(iv) Believing in good faith in their representation and assurances, we agreed to enter into long term Sub-Lease agreement at their premises.
(v) Accordingly a registered sub lease deed dated 21st April, 2015 was executed by and between the above named company and ourselves. In terms of sub-lease, the above named Noegie Auto (P) Ltd., as Lessor granted lease in our favour in respect of 5000 sqt. little more or less area situated at Ground Floor and 1st floor comprised in Holding No. N/19, NH-2 South, Touzi No. 01 Mouza-Faridpur City Centre Durgapur - 16 J.L. No. 74 C.S. Plot No. 3395 (P) NH-2, Khatian No. 1362, L.O.P. No. 1 Ward No. 22 within Durgapur Municipal Corporation under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar Durgapur District-Burdwan, Durgapur - 713216 (W.B.) on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Sub-Lease.
(vi) Thereafter, agreement dated 09.04.2016 executed between said “Neogie Auto (P) Ltd.”, and ourselves, the above named persons agreed to provide us additional 37KV of electricity Power over and above 60KV to run our office.
(vii) At the time of making such sub-lease Deed and subsequent agreement, the above named persons have promised and assured that there would be no impediment from any corner, what so ever it may be, for smooth running of our business. Amongst others, it was also assured that there would be uninterrupted supply of electricity.
(viii) Believing upon their promises and assurances, we parted with an onetime payment of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two crore and fifty lacs) only at the time of execution of Sub-lease Deed and Rs 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lacs) towards refundable security deposit amount and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) only towards non-refundable mobilization fees at the time of making such subsequent agreement for obtaining 121KVA from DPL power supply. We also invested huge amount of money to the extent of Rs.1,00,00,00.00 Crore (approx.) for setting up infra-structure of our business at the aforesaid premises.
(ix) It was agreed that until we obtain
Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy and Anr.
Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited
Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr.
Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors.
S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors.
State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors. : (2004) 1 SCC 691 : Para - 8, 11
Civil Disputes cannot be given colour of criminal cases as a pressure tactics.
The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences is vital; mere breach of contract does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent.
Allegations of financial misconduct must establish criminal intent; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence under IPC sections 406 and 420.
The court established that allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating require proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation, and that civil disputes can escalate to criminal offenses ....
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be used as leverage in civil disputes, emphasizing the need for proof of dishonest intent and necessary ingredients for offences claimed. Lack of v....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the parties was predominantly of a civil nature and could not be allowed to take on a criminal character. The court found ....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere breach of contract; allegations must disclose a criminal offence to justify prosecution.
Main Legal Point
Breaches of commercial agreements do not constitute criminal offenses unless fraudulent intent is established at the outset, reinforcing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal matt....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.